Proposed Changes to Current Charter School Regulation

Testimony

On

Proposed Changes to Current Charter School Regulation

N.J.A.C. 6A:9B, 9C, 11, 23A & 26

At Second Discussion

January 4, 2016

Thank you for the opportunity to share the thoughts of the New Jersey Principals andSupervisors Association (NJPSA) and its statewide membership on amendments to the recently proposed regulatory changes to current education professional licensure within, and regulation of, Charter Schools, N.J.A.C. 6A:9B, 9C, 11, 23A and 26.

Our members are the principals, assistant principals and supervisory employees at the school building level who are responsible for: developing the educational vision of a school; ensuring a safe and secure learning environment for students and staff; implementing curriculum and assessment; and, leading teachers and school staff.

As we indicated back in November, NJPSA understands the need to address issues that have arisen within the charter school environment. We support several of the provisions which seek to enhance reporting, including public reporting on charter school academic performance and accountability.

We equally appreciate the language incorporated within the amendments to the proposal which better clarify the relationship, breadth and business rules related to charter school student participation in extra-curricular activities. See amendment to N.J.A.C. 6A:11-4.16. Similarly, we welcome the amendment which helps ensure comprehensive professional development planning in charter schools. See amendment to proposed changes to N.J.AC. 9C:1.1.

Nonetheless, as we indicated several weeks ago, regulatory change in the charter landscape requires a balanced approach as changes will have a direct and irrevocable impact on students, teachers and school leaders attending both charter and traditional schools across the State.

We welcome the fact that the State Board has taken a deliberative approach in reviewing this regulatory proposal. We also appreciate several of the amendments which seek to clarify questions raised during the deliberative process. We continue to look forward to working with this Board and the New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE) on this code proposal as it moves forward.

Weakening Certification

However, even with the significant clarifying changes to the provisions related to certification, NJPSA remains troubled by the State’s departure from ensuring that all educators providing teaching to our students are adequately prepared – preparation which comes via the existing traditional or alternate route process. The quality of our educational workforce cannot and should not be jeopardized in the name of ease or expedience. Licensure serves as the baseline requirements that a teaching staff member should possess to adequately provide teaching and learning. Eliminating this baseline jeopardizes the quality of instruction students receive and that is unacceptable to our members as instructional leaders.

Moreover, to argue that language from the 1995 Act which indicates first and foremost that ‘All classroom teachers and professional support staff shall hold appropriate New Jersey certification,’ allows for this liberal expansion in certification is troubling. It has been 21 years since the Charter School Program Act of 1995 became effective (January 1, 1996). If changes to certification were envisioned by the Legislature and Administration at the time, the regulations that sprang from the initial enactment of the law would have referenced such necessary changes to the alternate route process. Interestingly, they do not.

Further, this plan wholly departs from the existing alternative route process, rather than making ‘appropriate adjustments’ as articulated under the Act. Nor do the changes necessarily confine certification to only those individuals ‘qualified by education and experience.’ We must ensure that the individuals who teach, provide instructional leadership, and those who manage our school administrative infrastructure are adequately educated and supported. We continue to argue this must be a non-negotiable principle that drives any proposed change – regardless of whether is a charter or a traditional public school. As such, NJPSA continues to object to Department-initiated changes surrounding certification of educational professionals in charter schools.

We raised concerns in 2013 when changes were made as it relates teachers. We continue to raise concern today as it relates to teachers, and now principals, Chief School Administrators, as well as business administrators. We appreciate the changes the Department has made to provide some limitations on who may serve in these integral roles, but we firmly believe that there are certain areas where standards, i.e. so called "inputs" by the Department, cannot and should not be compromised in the name of flexibility or innovation – certification is one such area.

Further, we continue to iterate that while charter schools may choose not to pursue hiring individuals with thesenew certifications, the creation of the program itself actually limits the ability ofstaff to move between and among different schools within a community, further enforcing the current silos that exist between the traditional school and the charter schools. If we believe that charter schools serve as "innovation laboratories" then staff in charter schools should be able to apply, and be encouraged to seek, employment in the traditional public school setting as well. Creating a lesser standard for charter school employees only enforces the barrier between the traditional and charter environments.

According to Department comment, 121 individuals are currently working under the 2013 charter teacher certification, with 89 in the pipeline. While we are happy to see that the Department has chosen to limit this certification program to a five year pilot in select schools and to see specific criteria the Department will use to determine which charter schools are permitted to participate in the pilot program, we question whether we have sufficiently studied whether the 2013 relaxation in teacher certification has produced positive change? Did challenges arise from the proliferation of a new type of teaching certificate? How did the schools who used this pathway to employ, provide adequate supports? We would urge the Department to full explore these questions prior to program expansion.

In addition, the Department argues the changes are necessary to help attract out-of- state operators who find ‘flexibility critical to potential expansion.’ But, traditionally out- of- state operators seeking to enter a jurisdiction must satisfy local health and safety requirements. Why would we bend our standards when the education of our children is implicated? Moreover, according to Department response, certification changes are also necessary because existing requirements are ‘cumbersome and duplicative.’ Which of the existing regulations are viewed as ‘cumbersome or duplicative?’ Why are they viewed as such? And, should a global change be considered across all sectors (charters and traditional)?

Principal Certification

As it relates to principals in particular, the proposal at N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-12.5 would specifically allow an individual with no advanced educational training or experience to serve as a school leader. The basis for the traditional certification process is grounded in educational research. School leaders are the second most important in-school factor that impacts student achievement.

Traditionally, individuals seeking to become a school leader must have five years of experience in the classroom, in addition to advanced training consistent with the Professional Standards of School Leaders AND go thru a comprehensive mentorship process to become a principal. The amended proposal would allow an individual with only two years in the classroom (not even enough time to acquire tenure in a traditional school environment) and a bachelor’s degree with no school leadership training to serve in a school leader role. We appreciate that the proposal will now require individuals seeking this certificate to pass a ‘State-approved assessment for principals’ and that a letter of recommendation from the charter school be provided, but do not believe this constitutes a sufficient indicia for readiness for this critical role.

We also question what ‘relevant management and leadership experience’ might be in this instance? Assuming these are out of state school leaders seeking to assume these roles in New Jersey they should possess sufficient education and experience to obtain certification via New Jersey’s reciprocity process. Further, it may be beneficial for the Department to provide concrete examples to the State’s charter schools of what sufficient management and leadership look like, should the policy be pursued.

Moreover, should these folks hail from non-traditional backgrounds, providing support and resources becomes even more critical. Unfortunately, this proposal does not require these individuals to participate in the State approved mentoring and induction program for new school leaders. That program provides novice principals with a trained mentor as well as tailored support / professional development. Individuals attaining certification via this pathway may have the most critical need for mentoring and professional development as they assume a new role, possibly far removed from their prior experiences. As such, we would urge the Department to require individuals utilizing this certification pathway to participate in the State’s two-year Residency for Standard Principal Certification. This can only be accomplished by also requiring the charter schools participating in the pilot program to incorporate the mentorship program in their professional development plans.

Extra-Curricular Activities

The code proposal also calls for charter school student participation in interscholastic or extracurricular programs in the district of residence at N.J.A.C. 6A:11-4.16. Unfortunately, the proposal does not provide details as to the relationship between the host district, the charter school and the student.

Preliminary threshold questions include issues such as whether the proposal applies to both extracurricular and athletics? But, the proposal invokes operational questions quite quickly. Would participation be based upon the agreement between the two principals at the two schools, similar to current NJ State Interscholastic Athletic Association (NJSIAA) rules which govern high schools?

What criteria would the charter student need to satisfy to participate? Would rules be based upon existing NJSIAA rules as to GPA and degree bearing course work? Further, what code of conduct would the charter student be subject to? And, where extracurricular slots are truly competitive it is unclear how a charter student’s participation would apply – must the host district allow the student to participate, at the loss of other students who hail from the host district? Would the two schools negotiate student participation or would this be based upon the choice or discretion of the student?

Moreover, several issues need to be resolved prior to moving forward. Just a few of these include issues related to:

a)transportation (i.e. who is responsible and who pays for transportation of the student to the host school - the charter school or the host district) ,

b)student fees (i.e. can a charter student be charged when host district students are charged to participate); and even

c)Cost to participate (i.e. who bears the cost of the student participating, particularly since under the School Funding Reform Act, 90 percent of aid goes to the charter school for educational purposes?) Could the requirement constitute an unfunded mandate?

Given these issues, we urge extreme caution, comprehensive review and decisive decision making if this policy change is pursued so that both charter and host districts know the rules of engagement.

Codifying Criteria & Expedited Review At Renewal

Unfortunately, N.J.A.C. 6A:11-1.2 does not define what constitutes a “high performing charter school,” merely stating that it is a school that meets the criteria set forth in the Performance Framework.While we know that the Performance Framework is an accountability system,and that the NJDOE uses it to evaluate the performance of charter schools, the specificity of the system is not codified in regulation. We appreciate that the system is aligned to traditional accountability measures but would recommend that the best way to ensure that all individuals have access to ‘rules of engagement’ is via regulatory codification. Moreover, we must ensure that there is a consistent level of accountability. This may be difficult when left solely to the Commissioner’sdiscretion as outlined currently under the proposal.

Further, while N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.2(d) requires the NJDOE to publicly report on each charter school’s academic performance basedon the Performance Framework, how will the NJDOE report this information to the public? Moreover, how will charter schools be reviewed as it relates to their finance or governance?

Finally, N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.3(c) would permit a ‘high performing charter school’ to utilize an expedited process for renewal of its charter. NJPSA would urge that the particulars of the expedited process beset out in regulation. This is consistent with how the regular renewal process is outlined currently. Such a regulation should also include specificity as to the timeline for renewal. The code proposal providesthat‘within 75 daysof submission of the renewal application, or pursuant to a Commissioner-established timeline,’ the Commissioner shall notify the charter whether it has been renewed. The code should provide particularity as to the renewal timeline. Moreover, the host district should also be notified as to the granting of the renewal.

Planning for the Planning Year

The proposal at N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.1(m) would alsopermit the Commissioner to grant an additional planning year to a charter school based upon a showing of good cause. Understanding how this will impact the local host district budget is critical for planning purpose. Moreover, if a charter school is given two planning years (N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-22.4(c)), when is a district required to transmit funds to the charter school? These questions must be resolved before moving forward with the code changes.

Facilities & Aid

Theproposedregulationbeforeyouwouldalso expand the authority of charterorganizations across the State to establish satellite campuses. Prior regulation permitted this only within"priorityschool"or formerAbbottdistricts. This will have a direct impact on ALL traditional school districts’ ability to forecast potential funding changesbasedupontheproposedopeningofacharterschoolinadistrict.Districtscanpredictwhena charterschool'sopeningmayaffectthem, inpart,becauseofthedesignateddistrictofresidence. By eliminating the "contiguous requirement" back in 2012, coupled with the expansion to any district, additional districts will see their ability to predict budgeting potentially adversely impacted since applicants can now liberally employ a "hop-scotch" approach in acceptingapplicants.

In addition, N.J.A.C. 6A:11-4.17 would permit charter schools to access state and local funds for the rehabilitation or expansion of a facility. Is this a separate pocket of funds or the same funds that traditional schools have access to? If yes, should charter schools be responsible for developing long range facilities plans and for obtaining other approvals similar to those required by traditional districts?

Finally, N.J.A.C. 6A:26-7.5 requires the NJDEO to maintain a list of closed, unused and unoccupied buildings. What authority will a charter have to obtain district unoccupied space?

Transportation Question

In addition to transportation questions raised above as it relates to extra-curricular activities, N.J.A.C. 6A:11-4.5(d) does not provide clarity around what obligation, if any, there may be for the home district of a non-resident student to provide transportation for that student? This review and update of the code may be an opportunity to address this question concretely. We would urge the Department to consider this at this juncture.

Single Purpose & Lottery Preferences

This proposal includes a new provision, N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.12, as it relates to allowing charter schools to limit enrollment to a ‘single purpose,’ so long as the school can demonstrate that the enrollment is limited to a ‘specific population of educationally disadvantaged or traditionally underserved students’ or on the basis of gender. To support such a change, the applicant must show ‘compelling need’ or ‘compelling educational reason’ respectively. What process will the Charter school go thru to prove this? As articulated above, should this process not be incorporated within regulation to allow for true notice to the public and all charter applicants?

Similarly, the code proposal at N.J.A.C. 6A:11-4.5 allows for a modified lottery process. NJPSA appreciates the Department’s commitment to having the charter school’s demographics be ‘to the maximum extent possible’ a ‘cross section of the community’s school-age population, including racial and academic factors. This helps at least signal thatdiscriminatory practices are not supported by the Department and this Board. As such, we are open to the Department efforts to allow for a weighted lottery that would foster better representation of the community’s school age population. We would, however, urge the Department to articulate how a district would facilitate this process more concretely within regulation. Clearly, more detail and further discussion is required on this question.

Clarifying Early Childhood Aid

While appreciative of proposed changes at N.J.A.C. 6A:11-4.7 that make it clear that preschool students enrolled at a charter school may continue on to kindergarten at the charter school without requiring reapplication, we do seek some additional clarification on the transfer of aid for participating charter school students in a kindergarten. For charter schools that have established kindergartens, is the aid per student that flows from the district based on the fact that aid for kindergarten is based on a half-day of attendance? We would urge the proposal address this aid question.

Charter School Closure

Finally, the code proposal at N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.4requires the appointment of an independent trustee to oversee the closure of a charter school. Clarification may be needed as the role of independent trustee is ethically and practically different from the other trustees. The role of the independent trustee might be violative of the provisions of the Code of Ethicsunder N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1.

In closing, thank you for the opportunity to present the concerns and recommendations of the NJ Principals and Supervisors Association. We stand ready to work with the Department, and this Board.